Incorporating characteristics of human creativity into an evolutionary art algorithm (journal article)

A perceived limitation of evolutionary art and design algorithms is that they rely on human intervention; the artist selects the most aesthetically pleasing variants of one generation to produce the next. This paper discusses how computer generated art and design can become more creatively human-like with respect to both process and outcome. As an example of a step in this direction, we present an algorithm that overcomes the above limitation by employing an automatic fitness function. The goal is to evolve abstract portraits of Darwin, using our 2nd generation fitness function which rewards genomes that not just produce a likeness of Darwin but exhibit certain strategies characteristic of human artists. We note that in human creativity, change is less choosing amongst randomly generated variants and more capitalizing on the associative structure of a conceptual network to hone in on a vision. We discuss how to achieve this fluidity algorithmically

Cultural evolution entails (creativity entails (concept combination entails quantum structure))

The theory of natural selection cannot describe how early life evolved, in part because acquired characteristics are passed on through horizontal exchange. It has been proposed that culture, like life, began with the emergence of autopoietic form, thus its evolution too cannot be described by natural selection. The evolution of autopoietic form can be described using a framework referred to as Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP), which grew out of a generalization of the formalisms of quantum mechanics, and encompasses nondeterministic as well as deterministic change of state. The autopoietic structure that evolves through culture is the mind, or more accurately the conceptual network that yields an individual's internal model of the world. A branch of CAP research referred to as the state-context-property (SCOP) formalism provides a mathematical framework for reconciling the stability of conceptual structure with its susceptibility to context-driven change. The combination of two or more concepts (an extreme case of contextual influence), as occurs in insight, is modeled as a state of entanglement. Theoretical and empirical findings are presented that challenge assumptions underlying virtually all of cognitive science, such as the notion of spreading activation and the assumption that cognitive processes can be described with a Kolmogorovian probability model

Creative thought as a non-Darwinian evolutionary process

Selection theory requires multiple, distinct, simultaneously-actualized states. In cognition, each thought or cognitive state changes the 'selection pressure' against which the next is evaluated; they are not simultaneously selected amongst. Creative thought is more a matter of honing in a vague idea through redescribing successive iterations of it from different real or imagined perspectives; in other words, actualizing potential through exposure to different contexts. It has been proven that the mathematical description of contextual change of state introduces a non-Kolmogorovian probability distribution, and a classical formalism such as selection theory cannot be used. This paper argues that creative thought evolves not through a Darwinian process, but a process of context-driven actualization of potential

Mind

What can relics of the past tell us about the thoughts and beliefs of the people who invented and used them? Recent collaborations at the frontier of archaeology, anthropology, and cognitive science are culminating in speculative but nevertheless increasingly sophisticated efforts to unravel how modern human cognition came about. By considering objects within their archaeological context, we have begun to piece together something of the way of life of people who inhabited particular locales, which in turn reflects their underlying thought processes.\ud \ud Comparing data between different sites or time periods tells us something about the horizontal (within generation) or vertical (between generations) transmission of material culture. In addition to patterns of transmission of existing kinds of artifacts, we are also interested in novel artifacts that might be indicative of new cognitive abilities, belief structures, or levels of cooperation. An archaeological period marked by the sudden appearance of many kinds of new objects may suggest the onset of enhanced creative abilities. By corroborating archaeological findings with anthropological data (evidence of sudden change in the size or shape of the cranium, for example) with knowledge from cognitive science about how minds function, we can make educated guesses as to what kinds of underlying cognitive changes could be involved, and how the unique abilities of Homo sapiens arose.\ud \ud In this chapter, we consider three questions about human cognition that can be addressed through archaeological data: (1) How did human culture begin? (2) Where, when, and how did humans acquire the unique cognitive abilities of modern Homo sapiens? and (3) What role do artifacts play in the evolution of these cognitive abilities

The cultural evolution of socially situated cognition

Because human cognition is creative and socially situated, knowledge accumulates, diffuses, and gets applied in new contexts, generating cultural analogs of phenomena observed in population genetics such as adaptation and drift. It is therefore commonly thought that elements of culture evolve through natural selection. However, natural selection was proposed to explain how change accumulates despite lack of inheritance of acquired traits, as occurs with template-mediated replication. It cannot accommodate a process with significant retention of acquired or horizontally (e.g. socially) transmitted traits. Moreover, elements of culture cannot be treated as discrete lineages because they constantly interact and influence one another. It is proposed that what evolves through culture is the mind; ideas and artifacts are merely reflections of its current evolved state. Interacting minds transform (in part) through through a non-Darwinian autopoietic process similar to that by which early life evolved, involving not survival of the fittest but actualization of their potential