Preconceptual Creativity
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Tapio Takala: Preconceptual Creativity. In: Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015, 252-259.
DOI
Abstract
Creativity, whether seen in personal or historical scope, is always relative, subject to the contextual expectations of an observer. From the point of view of a creative agent, such expectations can be seen as soft constraints that must be violated in order to be deemed as creative. In the present work, learned conventions are modeled as emergent activity clusters (pre-concepts) in a selforganizing memory. That is used as a framework to model such phenomena as stereotypical categorization and mental inertia which restrain the mind when searching for new solutions. Using the kinematics of a robotic hand as an example, the models' dynamic behavior demonstrates primitive creativity without symbolic reasoning. The model suggests cognitive mechanisms that potentially explain how expectations are formed and under which conditions an agent is able to break out of them and surprise itself.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Takala, Tapio},
title = {Preconceptual Creativity},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2015},
year = {2015},
month = {Jun},
location = {Park City, Utah, USA},
pages = {252-259},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/11_2Takala.pdf http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Preconceptual_Creativity },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Boden, M. (1990). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Weidenfeld & Nicholson (2nd ed. Routledge, 2004).
Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial intelligence, 47(1), 139-159.
Brooks, R., & Stein, L. (1994). Building brains for bodies. Autonomous Robots, 1(1), 7-25.
Chella, A., Gaglio, S., Oliveri, G., Augello, A., & Pilato, G. (2014). Creativity in Conceptual Spaces. In 5th Intl. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 306-314.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.
Duka, A. V. (2014). Neural network based inverse kinematics solution for trajectory tracking of a robotic arm. Procedia Technology, 12, 20-27.
Egner, T., Monti, J. & Summerfield, C. (2010). Expectation and Surprise Determine Neural Population Responses in the Ventral Visual Stream. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(49), 16601–16608.
Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the 'neurds': Characterizing creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics of human memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 1-13.
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. MIT press.
Goldstone, R. L., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2010). Categorical perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(1), 69-78.
Grace, K., & Maher, M. L. (2014). What to expect when you’re expecting: the role of unexpectedness in computationally evaluating creativity. In 4th Intl. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 120-128.
Hofstadter, D., & Mitchell, M. (1994). The copycat project: A model of mental fluidity and analogy-making. Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory, 2(31-112), 29-30.
Hristovski, R., Davids, K., Araujo, D., & Passos, P. (2011). Constraints-induced emergence of functional novelty in complex neurobiological systems: a basis for creativity in sport. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 15(2), 175-206.
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design studies, 12(1), 3-11.
Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological bulletin, 70(6p1), 387-403. Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-organizing maps (Vol. 30). Springer Science & Business Media.
Kohonen, T., Kaski, S., Lagus, K., Salojarvi, J., Honkela, J., Paatero, V., & Saarela, A. (2000). Self organization of a massive document collection. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on, 11(3), 574-585.
Lorini, E., & Falcone, R. (2005). Modeling expectations in cognitive agents. In AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium: From Reactive to Anticipatory Cognitive Embodied Systems. 114-121.
Maher, M. L., Brady, K., & Fisher, D. (2013). Computational models of surprise in evaluating creative design. In 4th Intl. Conf. on Computational Creativity, 147-151.
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 107-120.
Newell, A., Shaw, C., & Simon, H. A. (1959). The processes of creative thinking. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Pylyshyn, Z. (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. Cognition 80(1), 127-158.
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 4(3), 328-350.
Rosch, E., Thompson, E., & Varela, F. (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT press.
Stewart, J. R., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (Eds.). (2010). Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press.
Takala, T. (2005). Creativity as disruptive adaptation – a computational case study. In: Gero and Maher (eds.), Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design VI, Univ. of Sydney, 95-110.
Wiley, D. J., & Hahn, J. K. (1997). Interpolation synthesis of articulated figure motion. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 17(6), 39-45.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/11_2Takala.pdf
