English (United Kingdom)French (Fr)Russian (CIS)Espa
Home Forum Neurohacking The Lab Creativity and Imagination

Login

      
      |
If you want to register, please send a mail introducing yourself to nha.council at our domain name (omitting the "www" of course).

Sakiro
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hi dudes!

An interesting article by Jeff Hawkins related to imagination, creativity and prediction.

It seems like he use the word creativity for creativity itself AND imagination.

There are some stuff that probably are not accurate like when he said that probably part of the genius of einstein is genetic and not only because "he use x part of the brain so much" ... i know this is a "chicken-egg" question,

"On the nature side, brains exhibit physical variations. Certainly some of the differences are genetically determined such as the size of regions (individuals can show as much as a three-fold difference in the gross area V1) and hemispheric laterality (women tend to have thicker cables connecting the left and right sides of the brain then man do). Among humans, some brains probably have more cells or different kinds of connections. It’s unlikely that Albert Einstein’s creative genius was purely a function of the stimulating environment in the patent office where he worked as a young man. Recent analyses of his brain – which had been thought lost, but was found preserved in a jar a few years ago – reveal that his brain was measurably unusual. It had more support cells, called glia, per neuron that average. It showed an unusual patterns and grooves, or sulci, in the parietal lobes- a region thought to be important for mathematical abilities and special reasoning. It was also 15 percent wider then most other brains. We may never know why Einstein was as creative and smart as he was, but it is a safe bet that part of his talent derived from genetic factors"
But overall a pretty good read i think! Had a few "aha moments" with some of his examples (like how the brain search for patterns for everything with the help of analogies?)

Alex can you share your opinion about it? seems like this dude "map" is very similar with ours?

"The Memory-Prediction Framework of Intelligence and the Subject of Creativity"

http://www.creativitypost.com/technolog … f_creativi

Cheers


Administrator has disabled public posting
Alex
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hi dude,
Yes this is good; I've been recommending him over in the thread 'open source watch'.

I see the ralationship between creativity & imagination thus: all imagination is creative; it has to be in order for us to perceive, we have to 'create' an image. Humans create images constantly, and I realize not everyone may call this creativity but it literally is.

We usually think of creativity as making things or thinking up new ideas or solving problems. But everything we perceive, we have created.

Hawkins is possibly using the term 'creativity' instead of 'imagination' because of the negative correlations of imagination with 'fantasy & hallucination'. People are going to find it hard to grasp that we hallucinate everything we see; it's just that usually our hallucinations conform to reality.

Whilst I totally agree with his comment, "We predict the future by analogy to the past." I would add, "And we predict what's most likely going on in the present by analogy to both."
Best,
AR


Administrator has disabled public posting
Leftblank
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

In fact, he uses the word "imagination" in exactly this sense in his excellent book "On Intelligence".

I've read it a couple times and highly recommend it. It offers a really refreshing perspective on the human mind. It felt to me like a missing part was finally found after ICMM and all the stuff I read here by NHA.

I've also used Hawkins' computational framework NuPIC to recognize patterns in seismological data, so his approach definitely works for partial and noisy data, but it's unclear yet if it is THE "artificial intelligence" algorithm.


Administrator has disabled public posting
Alex
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hawkins' original TED talk on why we don't have a good brain theory first got me interested because he was blowing away a lot of myths and cutting to the chase.

I'm hoping to expand some of those 'missing parts' in tutorials too, (and since SO much more has been discovered since ICMM, there is a profusion of missing parts!)

I would definitely point anyone interested in AI in Hawkins' direction rather than any other right now. Apart from anything else he is an excellently clear demonstrator and manages to maintain simplicity when describing some horribly complex things and thus pack a shitload of information into a short talk or article. I know he sometimes lectures as though he is in a terrific hurry  :  )  but the enthusiasm shines through. 

Since the ground rules behind the emergence of modularity were cracked,* I prophecy some interesting results from Hawkins real soon. Kevin Kelly makes a good point in that systems have to go 'out of control' at some point during their development, and I don't know much about AI so feel free to educate me, but I feel Hawkins is 'doing things in the right order' and putting down some really solid foundations here.

Best,
AR

* About last Wednesday:  Jeff Clune, Jean-Baptiste Mouret and Hod Lipson "The evolutionary origins of modularity", http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2743v1.pdf  11 July 2012


Administrator has disabled public posting
Sakiro
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hi dudes, maybe don't belong here, but i found this today and i laughed a lot ..

Test it! how good is your perception?? =)



I wonder if this only happend with a video?


For Alex: do you read this book?  "Prediction in the brain, using our past to generate our future"? is from 2011 so maybe, is up to date.

http://www.amazon.com/Predictions-Brain … 0195395514

Summary:

When one is immersed in the fascinating world of neuroscience findings, the brain might start to seem like a collection of "modules," each specializes in a specific mental feat. But just like in other domains of Nature, it is possible that much of the brain and mind's operation can be explained with a small set of universal principles. Given exciting recent developments in theory, empirical findings and computational studies, it seems that the generation of predictions might be one strong candidate for such a universal principle. This is the focus of Predictions in the brain. From the predictions required when a rat navigates a maze to food-caching in scrub-jays; from predictions essential in decision-making to social interactions; from predictions in the retina to the prefrontal cortex; and from predictions in early development to foresight in non-humans.

The perspectives represented in this collection span a spectrum from the cellular underpinnings to the computational principles underlying future-related mental processes, and from systems neuroscience to cognition and emotion. In spite of this diversity, they share some core elements. Memory, for instance, is critical in any framework that explains predictions. In asking "what is next?" our brains have to refer to memory and experience on the way to simulating our mental future.

But as much as this collection offers answers to important questions, it raises and emphasizes outstanding ones. How are experiences coded optimally to afford using them for predictions? How do we construct a new simulation from separate memories? How specific in detail are future-oriented thoughts, and when do they rely on imagery, concepts or language? Therefore, in addition to presenting the state-of-the-art of research and ideas about predictions as a universal principle in mind and brain, it is hoped that this collection will stimulate important new research into the foundations of our mental lives.
And the last one .. if our brain to understand something must "match-up" the percept with our own database of concepts (memory, hopefully congruent) and using imagination to "fill what is missing/differences", and if we know that the perceps (what's going out there) must have enought points of similarity to be understand .. at firs glance it seems like being intelligence or understand stuff fast, is just a matter of fill that database with more and more and more congruent concepts so you have a better/more chances to come along with a percept who match "close enough" with a concept already know .. ??

So .. now is when i wonder if having a strong imagination (even if you don't have a big database to compare) can apply "tricks" to find the similarities (enough points in common) to a percept? and that's where exercises like making analogys or Metaphor, and mind-maps can help to achieve that?

Taking in account that strictly speaking we start with our "eidetic pack" of 6 association and ALL we learn are related to that, so i interpret that like in a very low level everything we could learn has in the first place enough points of common to at least, associate with our eidetic cores concepts. And that's where it can play a rol when we do the exercises to associate everything to the core concepts explained in tutorials? (eg, explain the alien game)

It makes sense? so, the question is .. one person could have a bigger concept database (more experience), but if other one have less concepts, but a stronger imagination, could learn things faster that the other because he is more "sensible" to associate stuff with the core concepts easier/faster?? which probably happens unconscious in the first place ..

Like if inside his mind can do this (picture below) even without a close related experience (with the help of imagination)

http://www.neurohackers.com/images/stories/cores%20subdivided.jpg

I know that i'm taking an approach very related to the rear side of the brain, and to "get" something we probably need the use of all our brain, but i'm interested in this specific part which are very heavy dependent of the stuff we are learning in the last tutorials .. imagination/prediction/concepts/eiditic cores/ and the mind inner model.


If i get a better way to explain my thoughts with better words about this i update it later LOL =)


Cheers


Administrator has disabled public posting
Alex
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hi folks,
Loads of bits:

Re:
http://www.creativitypost.com/technolog … f_creativi

Love this:
"Try to program a computer to find similarities between objects such as pianos and vibraphones and you will see how incredibly difficult this is".
...How about we don't try this, but just believe him?  :  )

Re: "Our predictions, and thus our talents, are built upon our experiences." This is a most important line for me because in NH the relevant thing is, we are still having experiences NOW and it's using input control on our own experiences that builds the 'we' of tomorrow.  Hawkins' words: " The more you are exposed to certain patterns, the more the memory of these patterns are re-formed at lower levels." is a technical version of GR3, "we will become more like whatever we are surrounded by".

Rather than 'patterns on top of patterns' I'd say 'patterns within patterns', as we're favoring the fractal design rather than a linear hierarchy.

"women tend to have thicker cables connecting the left and right sides of the brain then man do" isn't true outside of western societies, (nor is the predominant high-density N5).
...And finally, analogy is N3's 'favorite' context. But every network has its own. N4's, for example, is metaphoric language & math, and N5's of course is the formal language of science. They are just different ways of representing concepts. N3 'likes' analogy because many of its processes are comparative (similar/different...looks a bit more like this, less like that...) Analogy is analog representation of data. Metaphor, math and formal language take us into digital representation of the same data.
Re:
http://www.amazon.com/Predictions-Brain … 0195395514
Sounds like waffle to me, but I don't like anthologies, as you normally get one or two really great chapters and the rest is 'filler'. From the summary immediately I think, how come they don't know there is absolutely no doubt that the brain is modular. It probably couldn't even have evolved this far if it wasn't; non-modular systems are much harder to evolve.

The questions:
How are experiences coded optimally to afford using them for predictions? How do we construct a new simulation from separate memories? How specific in detail are future-oriented thoughts, and when do they rely on imagery, concepts or language?

...I hope have been covered adequately in T9, although the last question isn't very coherent. All thoughts rely on imagery and concepts, only frontal lobe processes use language of various kinds.
On to the juicy bits:
Sakiro wrote: "it seems like being intelligence or understand stuff fast, is just a matter of fill that database with more and more and more congruent concepts so you have a better/more chances to come along with a percept who match "close enough" with a concept already know .. ?? "
Yes that's a great strategy, but we have to use the processes regulatly too (or its like having a massive library and never reading.)
[s] i wonder if having a strong imagination (even if you don't have a big database to compare) can apply "tricks" to find the similarities (enough points in common) to a percept? and that's where exercises like making analogys or Metaphor, and mind-maps can help to achieve that?

Yes
[s] i interpret that like in a very low level everything we could learn has in the first place enough points of common to at least, associate with our eidetic cores concepts. And that's where it can play a rol when we do the exercises to associate everything to the core concepts explained in tutorials?

Yes
[s] if other one have less concepts, but a stronger imagination, could learn things faster that the other because he is more "sensible" to associate stuff with the core concepts easier/faster??
Yes
[s] which probably happens unconscious in the first place ..
Yes
[s] I know that i'm taking an approach very related to the rear side of the brain
So is N3, because most of it lives there. We have already 'got' a lot of patterns unconsciously.
[s] i'm interested in this specific part which are very heavy dependent of the stuff we are learning in the last tutorial; imagination/prediction/concepts/eiditic cores/ and the mind inner model.

T9 is like, one section away fom finished. Should I put it up without the exercises/hacks section and finish it online? )you won't have any references or answers to puzzles, so that could be a laugh) but you'll have the info?
Best,
AR


Administrator has disabled public posting
Sakiro
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Thanks for that answers! slowly i'm getting the puzzle better.

Alex wrote:



T9 is like, one section away fom finished. Should I put it up without the exercises/hacks section and finish it online? )you won't have any references or answers to puzzles, so that could be a laugh) but you'll have the info?
Best,
AR
Woaah! for me is an absolutely YES! =) ... and i predict that before we can read and asimilate all that tasty info the last section will likely be updated anyways!.

Thanks


Administrator has disabled public posting
sirhinojo
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Yes Alex, I would say put up the 9th Tutorial.  It seems like finishing the tutorial "online" might be good.  Could make the finished product have more influence from our feedback. 

Looking forward!

D.


Administrator has disabled public posting
Sakiro
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hey guys, a talk about a mix of creativity/humour by John Cleese, i think is worth it at least for the jokes LOL =)

"John Cleese on Creativity"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VShmtsLhkQg

Be aware that his pov about creativity, probably,  will not give us, neurohackers, nothing new, but it has some interesting stuff towards the end. And it always surprise me how "normal" people (not scientific background, etc) can at least get closer to the truth without even trying, just living his life with less anxiety than the rest people, in a healthy way, and they construct a map that a least is enough close to reality to give talks like this .. (i don't know if i explain that part good enough LOL)

Anyways .. so ..

I personally liked at the 18:30 mark, when he share his experience being creative writing script, and the importance of "Sticking with the problem" longer ... to get that "aha" moments. And some people just "rush" that process getting to a solution faster (but maybe getting a less creative one), to get that relief of implementing the solution (that happend to me, when i see a solution i need to execute it and it's difficult delaying it)

PS: Btw i'm having problems inserting videos in the post, it just put me a white square.

Have fun


Administrator has disabled public posting
Alex
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Only just caught up with this!

Agree it is absolutely brilliant, (and yes for 'Time 2', read 'duration/tenacity'  :  )

The last few minutes so perfectly describes those teacher/parent/'middle management' creativity-squashing characters we've all encountered so many times, I laughed my ass off  :  )
Thanks for a really fun morning!
Best,
AR


Administrator has disabled public posting
Sakiro
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

More about Jeff Hawkins and his "Prediction Intelligence Paradigm"

Alex there is anyone apart of him (and us?) who is using that model to explain intelligence?

I mean, sometimes i try to read some new papers and research about it, and most of the experiments trying to improve intelligence are based on the old jaeggi study where they try to train working memory and see if there are a result in "fluid intelligence" (whatever what they mean with that, maybe they only mean changes in IQ).

The problems is the results are so mixed, so i was wondering if the researchers are testing it "wrong" (maybe because they don't have a clear model of what intelligence is and how to test/measure it?) i mean, just knowing the impact that anxiety levels can have in the brain is enough to take that variable in account before and after the test ..?

And of course, using our model, we can't expect great changes only focusing in one aspect of one network and expect to bring results in all the others functions of the brain right?

I mean, i feel like they are wasting precious time/resources that could be used in a better way and the reason of that is that they don't have a good framework of intelligence where they can base his experiments?? ..


Administrator has disabled public posting
Alex
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Good morning dude  :  )

Re: is anyone apart from him (and us?) who is using that model to explain intelligence?


Others coming in from the 'emergence' direction: Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen; “Figments of Reality” and “The Collapse of Chaos”. And Stephen Johnson's “Emergence” is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Joh … 8author%29
I haven't read “Mind Wide Open” yet but would like to.

Other areas: Bruce Lipton has the proteomics mechanics here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLZ7GqWpEqM
...Bruce is slightly woo-woo and that can be offputting, but his biology is right on the mark.

In AI, IBM's latest neuromorphic attempt here: http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ10502.pdf
But much more exciting is the little project nobody's gonna hear about; “Spaun”:
http://uwaterloo.ca/stories/spaun-offer … an-brain-0
http://nengo.ca/build-a-brain/spaunvideos
Source: Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/simulated-br … S-20121204


We've probably done the most coherent work on emotional function and applications theory; what's holding that up is the lack of distinction between emotion & sentiment. Unless it's categorized thusly, it's not going to make sense. Dan Goleman did some good work in “Emotional Intelligence” but made the exact same error, and his attempts to categorize emotion don't work very well.

On the software theory front, "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson is well worth a read.

Time and resources are never wasted playing with ideas. Sure, most of what we find out is how not to do things (like Edison discovering 2,000 ways not to build a light bulb)   :  )  but with no trial and error things take a lot longer to come to fruition.
Best,
AR


Administrator has disabled public posting
Sakiro
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Alex wrote:




We've probably done the most coherent work on emotional function and applications theory; what's holding that up is the lack of distinction between emotion & sentiment. Unless it's categorized thusly, it's not going to make sense. Dan Goleman did some good work in “Emotional Intelligence” but made the exact same error, and his attempts to categorize emotion don't work very well.

AR
Alex i was keep thinking about this neccesary distinction within sentiments and emotions.

And if someone wants to works towards a 100% healthy emotional system (what biology expect you to have when you are mature), one could say that we should never experience/feel fear? even in dangerous/life threatening situations? (where probably the emotion "alarm" should kick in)

I say this because i was wondering which situation could give us the best chance to survive in an scenario like that ...

if we have fear .. maybe we can gain some "extra" power/speed in your muscles (flight and fight response) which could be potential used to run faster or fight with the enemy better (or maybe not)

if we have only alarm .. we could lose that supply of blood in our muscles, but we could have all our brain to, maybe, have an smart/creative idea of how we could survive (maybe we can detect some stick in the floor and use like a weapon, something that probably our perception couldn't detect if we are in a high anxiety state) .. or maybe we can have the flight and fight response and keep still the blood supply to our frontal lobes???

Sometimes we read/hear "fear is a normal, you just need to go through it/control it", and of course is admirable the people who at least is not a prisioner of theirs fears, and keep going forward, but we could say that they are wrong? fear is not normal to have in a healthy brain?

I know that, probably, we are talking to an "ideal" state of the brain to attain before one can aspire to "never experience fear" or another sentiment based reaction .. but is interesting to talk about it, and how life could flow so easily always having emotions that help the system to thrive with every interaction and never sentiments which always harm us in one way or another.


Administrator has disabled public posting
Alex
useravatar
User Info

Re: Creativity and Imagination

Hi dude,
Mad busy day, please forgive if this mail sounds abrupt!
You wrote:  if we have fear .. maybe we can gain some "extra" power/speed in your muscles (flight and fight response)

F/F response is triggered by the emotions of defensiveness/offence/antipathy; NOT by fear, although alarm will almost certainly be present. Fear triggers panic and loss of control, antipathy triggers our fine tuned muscular response in situations where there literally is no time to think (so no need for frontal lobes!) It's an emergency automatic response that saves our lives, whereas fear only puts us into greater danger.

A lot of people think alarm and/or antipathy IS fear, because they've never experienced the difference. The difference is obvious in behavior: antipathy prompts fight/flight, fear prompts panic, running around aimlessly, passing out, or freezing and crapping our pants.

If a threat is not immediate, we don't need antipathy but just alarm. We can think more clearly when alarmed because all our senses go on red alert and concentrate really hard, priming for possibilities. We see things like the stick on the ground that 'might' be used as a weapon. If in a group, we try to warn our friends silently by signing or verbally with call signs. This is the state of alarm.
Alarm is normal, and most people who feel alarm don't feel fear even though they think/believe/have been told that's what they're feeling. Real fear causes a shock response, and it kills.

I realize this is based on the 'optimal model' of mature intelligence, and part of that maturation is controlling such automatic responses and using our emotional system adeptly. So fear is absolutely normal in an inexperienced brain, which is why many student doctors pass out in their first surgical observations. But note they don't carry on passing out, or no operation could ever get done. We mature by learning to overcome anxious reactions and using healthy interactions.

It's just the same as chucking our food all over ourselves is absolutely normal if we're two years old. Maturity is about mental control as well as physical control, but society has lost track of that fact. We are constantly told, “We can't help it, its just our nature”. When sadly our very nature IS to 'help it'. We should be able to 'run' whichever emotion we decide we prefer, simply by naming it as being so.

Maybe this seems a bit vague without tutorial 10, if so I apologize; it's coming. It's also difficult breaking ground where there is no precedent for the model  :  )  and nobody has tried to explain this before. So we will have to take it slow with lots of feedback. We have all the jigsaw puzzle pieces, and as a system it makes sense. For me, explaining it coherently is now the challenge  LOL  :  )
Best,
AR


Administrator has disabled public posting

Board Info

User Info:   Newest User :  sailing 1   Members Online: 0   Guests Online: 517
Topic
Nuevo
Locked
Topic
Nuevo
Locked
Sticky
Active
New/Active
Sticky
Active
New/Active
New/Closed
New Sticky
Closed/Active
New/Locked
New Sticky
Locked/Active
Active/Sticky
Sticky/Locked
Sticky Active Locked
Active/Sticky
Sticky/Locked
Sticky/Active/Locked