larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA (06/19/86)
(When you read "hir" pronounce it as if you meant to say "him" and halfway through decided to say "her." It becomes "hi-er," a diphthong hard to distinguish from "hear.") I'm an artist in three media (four if you count programming, which I do). To me creativity is just another skill which I use without giving it much thought, at least until discussions like these come along. Here are some of my ideas on the subject. Creation is a recombination process. When I come up with a new character for a story, parts of hir come from prior percepts: a complexion from him, a walk from her, an accent from yet a third person. (Or a slant from this letter, a squiggle from that number, etc., if I'm painting!) Recombination done randomly is not very fruitful. Creativity includes ways to cut down on the number of recombinants. Or possibly A way, because this winnowing is done subconsciously. I don't know consciously what it/they are, but I FEEL them working, so I know they/it exist. The first step in creativity is "playing," "fingering" the contents of the field within which a solution is desired. This apparently random, frivolous activity is anything but. It provides some of the pleasure which fuels an artist, and it transfers the elements of the field out of short- term memory into long-term memory (making them easily accessible). Or it may place them into some kind of mid-term memory, or load the memories with some kind of potential which makes these elements of long- term memory more likely to be accessed than others, thereby decreasing the number of combinations produced. The second step introduces more (obviously) purposeful activity. The artist begins looking for the solution to a problem. It's important that she (pronounced she, just as if it weren't spelled s/he, which it isn't) not begin with a goal, or at least not one that's narrowly and urgently defined. You don't want hir to overly restrict hir search for useful neologs. (Linguists, help! There has to be a better word than neolog.) This is a less-pleasurable activity than the playing stage, more logical and conscious. Like the first stage, it transfers percepts/concepts to long-term memory and reinforces them. And it "grinds in" to hir mind the goal of the problem-solving, so well that even in the next stage some part of hir is seeking it. The third stage is relaxation, where the conscious mind transfers its attention to some other activity, one which holds just enough attention to prevent hir from falling into deep sleep (light sleep is OK). But not so engrossing that she begins solving another problem, which would interfere with the current problem. Routine physical activities seem to be best. Ironically, this "idleness" is the most crucial and productive phase. Because at some point she will experience the "Eureka" phenomenon, where a combination of percepts/concepts matches the mask of the goal and slips through into consciousness. (Just before the match occurs she may get a "Something's happening!" feeling that will wake hir up from hir doze/daydream/dawdling/drudgery.) This is the magical moment, where (it feels as if) another spirit, a genie/genius pushes the solution into hir consciousness. There's usually surprise because the neolog is strange ("Did that REALLY come from me?!") and delight because it solves the problem so well. Or at least it seems to. Now comes stage four: fleshing out what is often a skeletal though pivotal part of the solution. After that is stage five: evaluating the solution. Then comes the last stage: making the solution operational. The evaluation stage is in some ways the least pleasant for the artist (or engineer/scientist/whatever), but in fact most creativity is faulty and must be rejected--but not forgotten; some of the worst ideas have the seeds of wonder in them. The effective artist learns not to be afraid of the bizarre, ugly, taboo, incorrect productions, but to delight in them and use them. (And to delight in the ordinary and plain and learn to see them as equally strange and wonderful.) So, in answer to the original question: Yes, analogy is essential to creativity, but I would prefer to make a more general statement. The core of creativity is a process of combining and recombining percepts and concepts, guided and limited by a channeling process, and the matching of each combination against a template, most of it done at a sub- or semi- conscious level. And with that definition we can design a creative computer. Larry @ jpl-vlsi.ARPA