[patcon]

What the sibling person is saying is relevant, and I'm kinda confused why you dismiss it as a straw man

> I'm describing the nature of creativity and no, the creative process is not simply fitting things together somehow.

Many non-naive folks in the sciences would agree that creativity (as far as the universe is concerned about human activity as a physical phenomenon) is basically just aimless recombination of semiotic structures, seeking stability that helps it (and associate structures) to persist. It's not unlike the function that genetic recombination performs in the biological strata of information. Genetic recombination are creativity in the biological substrate. Our version is just much more highly dimensional, but it's the same shit (the same forces in the universe) underlying it.

Your saying human creativity is "something more" feels to me like an example of elevating the subjective conscious experience of it