Sound Research WIKINDX

"A straightforward way to examine the role of executive processes is to examine the role of fluid intelligence, a domain-general executive ability (Carroll, 1993). People higher in fluid intelligence can use complex strategies more effectively (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011a, Study 2), switch idea categories more often (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011a, Study 1), manage interference (Unsworth, 2010), and discern patterns, rules, and structure in complex problems (McGrew, 2005). Fluid intelligence is closely tied to working memory span (Su¨ß, Oberauer, Wittman, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002), another ability fundamental to the deliberate control of cognition and attention. Fluid intelligence can thus represent variability in how well people can exert control over the mental resources needed to generate good ideas"

Interestingly, the sensory versus communicative-level judgement processes were further distinguished by different interaction processes: the former were moderated by rates of story-telling and perceived effort (though in opposite directions), while the latter were moderated by personal positive attitudes toward AI. These interactions shed light on when and why individuals may appreciate art made by different creators, as posed in our initial research question, and also reflect how different stages of multi-processing models of aesthetics may interact with one another.

In conclusion, people tend to perceive art as reflecting a human-specific experience, though creator labels seem to mediate the ability to derive deeper evaluations from art. Thus, creative products like art may be achieved — according to human raters—by non-human AI models, but only to a limited extent that still protects a valued anthropocentrism." 

"I said earlier that ‘new’ has two meanings, and that ‘surprising’ has three. I didn’t say how many meanings ‘valuable’ has – and nobody could. Our aesthetic values are difficult to recognize, more difficult to put into words, and even more difficult to state really clearly. (For a computer model, of course, they have to be stated really, really clearly.)

Moreover, they change: who will proudly admit, today, to having worn a beehive hairdo or flared trousers in the 1960s? They vary across cultures. And even within a given ‘culture’, they are often disputed: different subcultures or peer groups value different types of dress, jewellery or music. And where transformational creativity is concerned, the shock of the new may be so great that even fellow artists find it difficult to see value in the novel idea.

Even in science, values are often elusive and sometimes changeable. Just what ‘simplicity’ or ‘elegance’ means, as applied to scientific theories, is something that philosophers of science have long tried – and failed – to pin down precisely. And whether a scientific finding or hypothesis is ‘interesting’ depends on the other theories current at the time, and on social questions too (might it have some medical value, for instance?).

Because creativity by definition involves not only novelty but value, and because values are highly variable, it follows that many arguments about creativity are rooted in disagreements about value. This applies to human activities no less than to computer performance. So even if we could identify and program our aesthetic values so as to enable the computer to inform and monitor its own activities accordingly there would still be disagreement about whether the computer even appeared to be creative."

Parallel to intelligece. Intelligence is also tied to several value parameters, and as Boden argues, creativity is one of them. Those who accumulate great wealth and thereby power are often viewed as intelligent, but the two need not have any correlation, for example. What constitutes value is often what is viewed as succesful, but surely that is a reduction of such a rich concept.

• combinational: Novel combinations of familiar things/ideas leading to an "intelligible conceptual pathway between them for the combination to ‘‘make sense’’" (p.32) rather than just a random combination.
• exploratory: Conceptual spaces are pre-existing "structured styles of thought" (p.32). Ways of writing, sculptural forms, navigating geography and physical space, etc. Not all ways of navigating those spaces have been explored, although they do exist; new possibilities might be found and this might lead further to questioning the bounds of that space and what further potential possibilities might exist . . .
• transformational: If exploratory creativity leads to questioning the limits of the conceptual space, transformational creativity takes it the obvious step further. Some conceptual spaces (e.g., a cartographic map) can't be changed; mental maps can be changed. "[T]hinking something which, with respect to the conceptual spaces in their minds, they couldn’t have thought before. The supposedly impossible idea can come about only if the creator changes the pre-existing style in some way" (p.34).