Creativity and Intelligence as an Evolutionary Process

[PDQ]

I was reading an article about a creativity machine and how it simulates creativity through a generate and test process. There's two systems at play, one that generates random ideas, and one that has criteria which select them.

Then it hit me. That sounded almost exactly like an evolutionary system if you include the fact that memory allows the information to be fed back into the system to test it as a hereditary process while generating more ideas is akin to reproduction. The randomness of the generator accounts for mutations, and the criteria is the natural selection.

Thus the reason we get smarter over time is maybe because of evolution. So the evolutionary process of nature didn't end with mankind, it simply shifted from our genes to our brains.

Thus, we instead of our brains having some set finite ability from the start, it can evolve as long as the resources are available. Thus with enough mental resources such as memory, we could understand everything.

This explains why we can master concepts well outside our intuition such as infinites etc.

[Zephos]

That does sound like the basics of creativity.
I want to see what the results of this test is.

[infinite]

I was reading an article about a creativity machine and how it simulates creativity through a generate and test process. There's two systems at play, one that generates random ideas, and one that has criteria which select them.

Then it hit me. That sounded almost exactly like an evolutionary system if you include the fact that memory allows the information to be fed back into the system to test it as a hereditary process while generating more ideas is akin to reproduction. The randomness of the generator accounts for mutations, and the criteria is the natural selection.

Thus the reason we get smarter over time is maybe because of evolution. So the evolutionary process of nature didn't end with mankind, it simply shifted from our genes to our brains.

Thus, we instead of our brains having some set finite ability from the start, it can evolve as long as the resources are available. Thus with enough mental resources such as memory, we could understand everything.

This explains why we can master concepts well outside our intuition such as infinites etc.

Well I National Geographic had a totally different explanation for why we get 'smarter'

It's because we have the ability to help others withou having selffish reasons or so. well it had basically to do with the following test.

A cimpansee had a choice between to boxes, when a human pretended to pcik the left or right box, than the chimpansee would pick the same box so he could get the food.
if the human didn't pretend to pick it, but to point at it with a finger, the chimpansee was clueless and picked wrong half of the time.
( they showed the same with a baby, who was able to understand the helpoing finger of the human that would lead to the food)

Another example was the following.
there is one chimpansee in a (big) cage, and another chimpansee in the cage next to him, the champansee could open the cage of the otherone to let him help.
in the first cage there were bars, and behind the bars was wood, with two ropes, when you pull on one side of the rope, the wood wouldn't move, if you pulled on both sides of the rope it would move the wood so they could get the food.

As long as there was food seperated in two, so each chimapnsee, the second chimpansee would help. But when both portions of food where layed together in the middle, the second chimpansee wouldn't help knowing he wouldn't get food from the other monkey, this resulted in no food for both.
This showed that they couldn't cooperate and share their profit like humans can.

I found it verry intersting, and it would proof the theory above to be wrong.

[PDQ]

Well I National Geographic had a totally different explanation for why we get 'smarter'

It's because we have the ability to help others withou having selffish reasons or so. well it had basically to do with the following test.

A cimpansee had a choice between to boxes, when a human pretended to pcik the left or right box, than the chimpansee would pick the same box so he could get the food.
if the human didn't pretend to pick it, but to point at it with a finger, the chimpansee was clueless and picked wrong half of the time.
( they showed the same with a baby, who was able to understand the helpoing finger of the human that would lead to the food)

Another example was the following.
there is one chimpansee in a (big) cage, and another chimpansee in the cage next to him, the champansee could open the cage of the otherone to let him help.
in the first cage there were bars, and behind the bars was wood, with two ropes, when you pull on one side of the rope, the wood wouldn't move, if you pulled on both sides of the rope it would move the wood so they could get the food.

As long as there was food seperated in two, so each chimapnsee, the second chimpansee would help. But when both portions of food where layed together in the middle, the second chimpansee wouldn't help knowing he wouldn't get food from the other monkey, this resulted in no food for both.
This showed that they couldn't cooperate and share their profit like humans can.

I found it verry intersting, and it would proof the theory above to be wrong.

That's not really building intelligence/creativity, just adding knowledge. Knowledge can help build intelligence, but it's only a single factor in a much larger system.

[impersonal]

Thus the reason we get smarter over time is maybe because of evolution. So the evolutionary process of nature didn't end with mankind, it simply shifted from our genes to our brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

;-)

[PDQ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

;-)

Right but that's interhuman reproduction of an idea, I'm talking about the intrahuman process of creativity that can function internally within a single person. But the two may coincide.

[Link]

Well, I don't think we can understand everything. Some concepts just can't be thought of in a normal "human" way.
I mean, our brains have a problem-solution and action-consequence kind of approach. When we encounter things that don't have a solution, it can become difficult for us to understand. Object oriented thinking doesn't equate reality very well.
Like, for me, I have a hard time understanding Pi.

Thinking does sound like a kind of evolution, but since it is trapped in the confines of a single humans memory (can't replicate), I wouldn't venture to call it a form of life. I don't think of new thoughts as "new", I think of them as recombinations of information we already possess. The occasional synaptic misfire might make new thoughts, but hitting myself in the head with a hammer would be unpleasant, so I'll leave testing that to someone else.