Leif's Blog

Currently reading psychology and encountered this definition of creativity, in the field of problem solving:

The capacity to produce something unique, and useful (Approaches to Psychology, W. Glassman).

The thing about problem solving is that sometimes, when a new approach to a problem is needed, we usually rely on this thing called creativity. Creativity itself is mostly associated with the Art or creating new ideas. This applies to problem solving as well.

The problem with the above statement is that it makes two very unbelievable descriptions of what creativity actually is. It is so broad, yet so narrow-minded that it practically has no meaning what so ever. By describing something as unique and useful is almost ignorant.

The cognitive process itself is based on the idea of gestalt theory. While in the process of problem solving, insight usually takes place once you cognite it long enough (both consciously and unconsciously). So for example, a math problem. Sometimes there is a question formated in a different way, that applies to very different concepts, one which an individual cannot see. After thinking about it, one suddenly gets the insight into how to solve the actual problem. The process itself is most often identified as creativity. So far the definition makes sense. The solution is something unique, and has use.

The problem is when you get to problems that have no answer at all. Sometimes, creativity may lead to a practical, or useful, solution to a problem. While sometimes, there are no realistic/useful solutions, but instead ideas. Even though a solution to a math problem may be wrong, it is ultimately creative. Even though people make mistakes, people can still be called imaginative.

What my argument basically is: Creativity is something that provides no solution. Creativity is the capacity to link to different things into one single thing. It is creative to solve a math problem in a different way (compared to the standard way). It is creative to join two different words to create meaning like in music. Creativity is something that is thought-provoking, imaginative, cognizant, something that provides a new way of looking at things.

Creativity is NOT the capacity to create a solution that is useful and unique. What I believe they were ultimately defining was the ability to come up with practical ideas that work only in reality, only useful for business strategies and real world applications. Sometimes it is necessary to not believe in reality, it may help people innovate and create new ideas.

Networking - I believe this is how the brain functions at its most basic level, and also a  representation of the WWW.

Now I know the term! Desire Paths, as coined by Gaston Bachelard. These paths symbolically say, “screw you, designer”.

Photo found from the flickr pool, which has even more photos.

Pentatonic Scale - There must be some neurological patterns arrising due to this.

http://tweenbots.com/

A social experiment in New York, where a small robot is guided using only human interaction to get from one place to another by changing the direction of the bot. The link above contains a few pictures of the bot. Found a nice video over here.

Psychologically speaking, flocking is very simple. Mathematically speaking, its almost impossible to generally create (make it actually look like behaviour).

The above image is from a PDF on the web, have no idea where now (its been on my hard drive for about a year now). It talks simply about simple mathematical algorithms in a very simple manner that is applicable to any computer language (like pseudocode, but even simpler). Some algorithms are circle/object packaging, tiling, weaving, blending, cracking. The above image shows the underlying concepts of flocking. Below is what it says on the image:

Recipe for Flocking

For each agent for each increment of time:

• Avoid crowding local flock-mates. Steer to keep a minimum distance between each agent and the ones around it.
• Align towards the average heading of local flockmates.
• Cohere to the flock, move towards the center of mass of local flockmates

Well, that seems easy, right? Its just two simple rules! If too close, make agent turn away. If too far, but close, make agent turn towards nearest center of mass. Sadly, it is something quite difficult, as it is hard to define center of masses and how to make something go towards something in a non-weird behaviour.

I found some great examples online. One of them stood out in particular. I particulary like the one linked because it also contains objects, food and predators, something that I initially wanted. A simpler example is one from the Processing.org site, which is originally based in Craig Renold (someone who developed the algorithm in 1986).

So I tried to replicate it on my own for a while, so far with out sucess. But hopefully I’ll find a way in the next few days (I may have to peek onto the source code on the Processing.org site version, hopefully not as I want the challenge)

As someone who likes to look at behavioural psychology, I think flocking is one of the greatest phenomena in nature, and its amazing to see flocking occur (most impressive are birds, which take 3-dimensional motions). And to think that it can be really replicated in mathematical terms is even more impressive.