Re: ART: Creativity
Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:56:07 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 97-02-28 17:54:04 EST, Robert Schrader wrote:

(about creativity and neural nets)
<< I'd quibble over words here, though I basically agree. Learning neural
nets demand _feedback_. Creativity is an artifact, not a neccesity.

This statement baffled me, explain please?
1. define creativity
2. define artifact
3. explain how one can identify which brain functions are neccesary, and by
what standards ( eat, poop, breathe? ),

<<That's part of it. Letting one's train of thought jump the tracks is
daydreaming or smoking dope. Anyone can do that. The essential part of
creativity is doing something with that meandering thought; getting it to
alight on another - perhaps new - track.>>

This is true, except that one need not always ACT on a creative thought for
it to be valuable. It need not even be coherent to stir new thoughts into
And, further, acting on it does not make it meaningful, by itself.
For example, in time, we may discard an old idea for a new one - as we did en
masse, replacing Newton' universe with Einstein's.
I suggest that Natasha's statement about "training the brain" begins with
many excursions into thoughts that do not become concrete, as well as those
that do. This is an important part of that part of our creativity processor,
fermenting as it were, new and useless ideas into ones that may later bear

You also say that loose thinking equals insanity ( probably not very
defendable, but a common entropic thought, as is your hypothesis that artists
in general tend towards insanity more than other gropus, which is not
supported by any evidence BTW). Can you show me how you came to this