|
|
|
|
|
|
by EsssM7QVMehFPAs
2401 days ago
|
|
|
Admittedly, that list is an arbitrary poke into areas of debate in your fields of profession. As a take on your interpretation of creativity: I would argue that the act of forming new and valuable propositions is not related to emotion or aesthetics per se. Aesthetic theory is observing a very narrow subset of creative processes. And even there, our transition from modernism into the uncertainty of the post-modernist world defies any sound definition of the "aesthetic criteria". Yet we perceive aesthetic human-creativity all the time. In similar vain is the application of generative machine learning that spurs debate about computational aesthetics today. Nothing proofs better the incapability of modern ML forming real creativity than the imitating nature of adversarial networks spitting out (quite beautiful) permutations of simplified data structures underlying the body of Bach's compositions. Now we could start on the assumed role of complex neurotransmitters in the creative process of the brain and the trivial way reinforcement learning rewards artificial agents, but that would push the scope of this comment. |
|
|
You can't really separate emotion and aesthetics from the neurotransmitters helping to implement them! They're considerably more complex than anyone usually gives credit for.
Likewise, to form a valuable proposition, you need a sense of value, which is rooted in the same neurological functionality that creates emotion and aesthetics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2666711/