Computational Creativity and Music - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 302

underlie various types of computer art. Whether computers can “really” be creative isn't a
scientific question but a philosophical one, to which there's no clear answer. But we do have
the beginnings of a scientific understanding of creativity ([ 1 ], p. 23).
Many other referenced definitions appear in the first chapter of Computer Models of
Musical Creativity I refer here to as CMMC [ 4 ]. There, readers will find a plethora
of other definitions and academic sources of further definitions for a ore complete
review of the subject.
In this chapter, however, I will define 'creativity' as “the association of two ideas
heretofore not considered related but now revealed as logically connected.” This defi-
nition is somewhat more readable than the one I use in CMMC as “The initialization
of connections between two or more multifaceted things, ideas, or phenomenon
hitherto not otherwise considered actively connected,” ([ 4 ], p. 11). Both of these
definitions are computable in the sense that one can produce code directly from them
that can be effectively used to generate potentially creative results. Buy potentially,
here, I mean that one must of course agree with my definition of creativity if one is
to appreciate the output of the code as creative.
Unfortunately, my definition for creativity, as all the others I've seen, still leaves
significant questions unanswered. For example, many would include cooking, exer-
cising, even skydiving as potentially creative activities. Certainly my definition does
not exclude these things. But, one might therefore ask whether creativity represents
an approach to anything that involves unexpected associations between two things
not previously considered related.
Of course, the same could be said for who or what can be creative—my two cats,
for example, since I've certainly seen them act in very creative ways. And I've also
seen rocks roam around under wind power at the Racetrack near Death Valley in
what seem like creative ways. And who's to say rocks are any less intelligent than
cats? After all, many rocks are more complex than animals lower on the food chain.
Therefore, I underscore my definition (above) by making sure it is understood
that any activity or thing doing that activity can be creative if it 'associates two
ideas heretofore not considered related but now revealed as logically connected.' In
a sense, then, my job is finished. Computers certainly fall under the above stated
criteria.
For this chapter, however, I will stick to humans and to technical devices of human
construction. Even here, though, I've known individuals for whom what I consider
creativity comes so easily I wonder if it can be called creativity. After all, consistently
producing surprises makes one suspicious it represents the true nature of something
as special as creativity. In contrast, I've known others who've made only one or
two creative discoveries in their entire lives, discoveries that have made significant
impacts on others. Should such things as these numbers matter? And is creativity
simply something voted on in silent elections by how much it impresses the society
in which it occurs? If so, then the objective becomes subjective to the point of making
true determination impossible.
And, of course, I've not included self-awareness—whether one must be
consciously aware of choices being made—or cognition—whether one person will