The prisons we choose to live inside hardly ever look like prisons while we are living in them.
If the twentieth century was the age of dictatorships — I grew up in one — reducing human beings to a herd, the twenty-first century, with its self-appointed moral despots, is the age of the tyranny of the herd itself. Having invented a merciless weapon of individual destruction — the pitchfork of the cancel mob — we are now doing to human nature what we have already done to nature, turning a biodiverse wilderness into a monoculture of a single crop deemed correct, forgetting there are infinitely many valid ways of being alive, that they can and must be complementary rather than contradictory if the ecosystem is to thrive.
It takes courage to resist this moral colonialism, to rewild the human spirit with the insistence that life, allowed its full aliveness, is not a symposium of self-righteousness but a festival of wonder, not a military parade of masses marching behind generals uniformed in the moral fashions of the day but a carnival of felicitous participancy on equal terms — people of all kinds, each costumed in some choice expression of their light, together constellating a collaborative cosmos of belonging to something both transient and transcendent.
Brian Eno
This model of life calls to mind a long-ago essay by pioneering musician Brian Eno, originally published in The Utne Reader in 2002, contemplating the qualities of a good carnival. They are, he argues, also the qualities of a good culture — a natural parallel given carnival is the consecration of aliveness through play and play is the lever by which humankind lifted itself from survival to civilization.
Looking back on his many years of taking part in London's Notting Hill Carnival — the world's second-largest carnival after Rio's — he writes:
Carnival is good when the number of participants isn't grossly outweighed by the number of spectators. Carnival is good when many of the `spectators' are actually also joining in (dancing and singing along). Carnival is good when the participants exhibit a range of skills from the absolutely minimal to the absolutely astonishing (the first being an invitation not to be intimidated — "Hey! I could do that!" — and the second an invitation to be amazed). Carnival is good when people of all ages, sexes, races, shapes, sizes, beauties, inclinations, and professions are involved. Carnival is good when there's too much to look at and everything's mixed up and you have to sort it all out for yourself.
Carnival costumes by Boris Israelevich Anisfeld, 1920s
Culture, in the modern sense, is the container we have created for human nature. But before a small clan of rebel anthropologists in the early twentieth century began using it to describe the customs of human societies, "culture" was a term of the natural sciences: in botany, the cultivation of plants; in biochemistry, the cultivation of cells in a nutrient-rich solution. It strikes me that effective conservation — the safekeeping of living systems — also shares the features Eno identifies in a good carnival. In a passage that reads like a perfect description of biodiversity in a thriving ecosystem and of the evolutionary processes of competition, collaboration, elaboration, and adaptation by which life came to occupy such different niches, he writes:
Carnival is good when it dignifies and rewards all sorts of abilities — singing, jumping, laughing infectiously, dressing weirdly, writing the hit song of the carnival, wiggling your backside, standing on a soapbox praising Jesus or the local hardware store, frying salt fish over an oil drum in public, inventing symphonic arrangements for steel bands, designing and building fabulously impossible things. Carnival is good when people try to outdo each other, and then applaud with delight those who in turn outdo them. Carnival is good when it gives people an alibi to become someone different.
Carnival, The Netherlands, 1911.
At its heart, a carnival is — as a healthy culture should be — an affirmation of our aliveness, in all its blessed improbability. Eno concludes:
Carnival is good when it lets people present the best part of themselves, and be, for a little while, as they'd like to be all the time. Carnival is good when it gives people the feeling that they're really lucky to be alive right here and now. Carnival is good when it leaves people with the feeling that life in all its bizarre manifestations is unbeatably lovely and touching and funny and worthwhile.
Complement with Leonard Cohen on what makes a saint and Walter Lippmann on what makes a hero — those twin pylons of a culture — then revisit Brian Eno's reading list of 20 books essential for civilization.
Marbling the waters of every ocean with their billows of black and white, orcas are Earth's most creative and most successful apex predator. Although they are known as killer whales, they are the largest member of the dolphin family. Older than great white sharks, they hunt everything from seals a tenth their size to moose bathing in the shallows to Earth's largest animal — the blue whale, whose tongue alone can weigh as much as a female orca.
The secret to these staggering feats is not brute force but strategy and synchrony.
Beneath the shimmering surface that divides us from what Rachel Carson called "those six incomprehensible miles into the recesses of the abyss," through the growling din of the engines that conduct consumerism between continents, orcas are communicating in their sonic hieroglyphics, speaking to each other in haunting and melodious voices that summon the most coordinated hunting strategy known in the animal kingdom.
Traveling in matrilineal groups, they search for seals across the frozen expanse, moving effortlessly through pack ice that sinks immense ships. As soon as they identify the prey, they swim together under the ice to shatter it with a sub-surface shock wave, then begin blowing bubbles beneath to push the broken pieces apart. Once the cracks are wide enough, they turn on their sides to create a synchronized surface wave so large its crest crashes onto the ice, pushing seals into the water, where the pod divides the bounty according to a complex calculus of social bonds.
All the while, they are teaching their young how to perform this collaborative symphony of physics and predation — a further testament to social learning as a key substrate of intelligence — and it is the females, particularly post-menopausal matriarchs, who are doing the teaching. Orcas have such strong maternal bonds that sons stay with their mothers for life — a phenomenon so well documented that the researchers behind one longitudinal study dubbed male orcas "mamma's boys."
Orca pod hunting a great blue whale. St. Nicholas magazine, 1920.
But while these bonds are the orcas' great strength, they are also their great vulnerability.
In 2018, while secluded on a small mossy island in Puget Sound to finish my first book, I watched the world turn with shattering tenderness toward an unfolding local event — for seventeen days, across a thousand miles of ocean, an orca mother carried her dead calf draped over her head, hardly eating, barely keeping up with her pod. NPR called it her "tour of grief." When she lost another calf in early 2025 — two thirds of orca pregnancies result in either miscarriage or infant death — she did the same, this time seventeen days.
Such sights so chill us because they are emblems of the miracle and tragedy of consciousness. Orcas would not be capable of such staggering success as predators if they were not also capable of such shattering grief, both a function of their intricate bonds, their collaborative interdependence, their complex consciousness that differentiates and bridges the difference between self and other. In the human realm, we call this love — the aspect of consciousness subject to the cruelest evolutionary equation: As Hannah Arendt so poignantly articulated, loss is the price we pay for love. It seems almost unbearable as we watch the mother orca carry her dead calf, and yet we too must bear it, and do bear it, however long and however far we may have to carry the dead weight of our grief — because we must, if we are worthy of our own aliveness, love anyway. "Gamble everything for love, if you are a true human being," wrote Rumi. Perhaps we are here to learn that love is worth any price, any price at all.
"The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do [only] whatever we know how to order it to perform," Ada Lovelace inveighed upon composing the world's first algorithm for the world's first computer. Meanwhile, she was reckoning with the nature of creativity, distilling it to a trinity: "an intuitive perception of hidden things," "immense reasoning faculties," and the "concentrative faculty" of bringing to any creative endeavor "a vast apparatus from all sorts of apparently irrelevant and extraneous sources" — that is, intuition, the analytical prowess to evaluate the fruits of intuition, and a rich reservoir of raw material to feed the "combinatory play" Einstein considered the crux of creativity.
The first comes from experience — intuition is what we call the pattern recognition unconsciously honed in the act of living. The third also comes from experience — everything we have ever read and seen, everyone we have ever loved, everything we have suffered becomes a building block for the combinatorial alchemy of creation. The second is the fault line between genius and madness — a creative revelation, be it the heliocentric model of the universe or the Goldberg Variations, is seeing something no one else has seen, which has acute relevance to the world as we know it, touches it, transforms it; a hallucination is seeing something no one else can see without the ability to evaluate its irrelevance to the real world.
A quarter millennium after Lovelace, we face the question of whether AI can achieve all three, and therefore originate truly new ideas, or remain in the straitjacket of binary logic — a disembodied intellect without the lived experience, in all its embodied and ambiguous wildness, on which true creativity draws. Out of this arises the far more disquieting question of whether we, as a species, are being trained by this "mechanical kingdom" of our own creation to mistake the simulacrum of life for life itself, to reduce our aliveness to algorithms. Given that creativity is a hallmark of our species, questions about the nature of creativity in human and non-human minds are ultimately questions about what it means to be — and remain — human.
Operators at the MANIAC I (Mathematical Analyzer Numerical Integrator and Automatic Computer Model I), 1952.
Few have reckoned with these questions more deeply, or more durationally, than British philosopher Margaret Boden (November 26, 1936–July 18, 2025), who composed her revelatory book The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (public library) when the Internet was just a few years old and computational models still in their infancy. At its heart is an investigation of how the human mind can surpass itself, how our intuition works, and how it is possible for us to think new thoughts, anchored in the insight that "a computational approach gives us a way of coming up with scientific hypotheses about the rich subtleties of the human mind," that AI-concepts are valuable not because they can (which they very well could) originate new ideas but because they can help us do so, because "both their failures and their successes help us think more clearly about our own creative powers."
All of this requires a clear definition of those powers — not the ancient cop-out of divine inspiration, not the Romantic conceit of the chosen few gifted with special talents, but a model that accounts for both the immense range of creativity and the wide variations across that range, for its fundamentally mysterious nature and for the possibility of comprehending the mystery without reducing it to code.
An epoch after Einstein observed that "the most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious" because there is always "something deeply hidden… behind things," after Carl Sagan insisted that "bathing in mystery… will always be our destiny [because] the universe will always be much richer than our ability to understand it," Boden considers the mystery of the universe within:
If a puzzle is an unanswered question, a mystery is a question that can barely be intelligibly asked, never mind satisfactorily answered. Mysteries are beyond the reach of science. Creativity itself is seemingly a mystery, for there is something paradoxical about it, something which makes it difficult to see how it is even possible. How it happens is indeed puzzling, but that it happens at all is deeply mysterious.
[…]
A science of creativity need not be dehumanizing. It does not threaten our self-respect by showing us to be mere machines, for some machines are much less "mere" than others. It can allow that creativity is a marvel, despite denying that it is a mystery.
Margaret Boden, 1990.
Defining creativity as "the ability to come up with ideas or artefacts that are new, surprising and valuable," Boden argues that it permeates every aspect of human life, is not a special "faculty" of the mind but "grounded in everyday abilities such as conceptual thinking, perception, memory, and reflective self-criticism," and is not binary — the question that should be asked is not whether an idea is creative but how creative it is, which allows us to assess both the subtleties of the idea itself and the "subtle interpretative processes and complex mental structures" through which it arose in the mind.
Drawing on everything from Euclid's revolutionary geometry to Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," she distinguishes between two types of creativity — personal creativity, which "involves coming up with a surprising, valuable idea that's new to the person who comes up with it" no matter how many other people have come up with it, and historical creativity, in which the idea is completely new in the whole of human history. Both are axoned in a substrate of surprise — "the astonishment you feel on encountering an apparently impossible idea. It just couldn't have entered anyone's head, you feel — and yet it did."
Boden identifies three aspects of creativity: First there is tessellating familiar ideas into unfamiliar combinations. Arthur Koestler, who greatly influenced Boden, termed this "bisociation" in his pioneering model of creativity. Gianni Rodari echoed in his notion of "the fantastic binomial" key to great storytelling. For such a combination to be truly novel, Boden observes, it requires "a rich store of knowledge in the person's mind, and many different ways of moving around within it."
The other two aspects of creativity both involve the conceptual spaces in people's minds — those structured styles of thought we absorb unconsciously from our peers, our parents, our culture, the fashions and fictions of our time and place: styles of writing and dress, social mores and manners, existing theories about the nature of reality, ideological movements. One creative approach to conceptual space is exploration. Boden writes:
Within a given conceptual space many thoughts are possible, only some of which may actually have been thought… Exploratory creativity is valuable because it can enable someone to see possibilities they hadn't glimpsed before.
Exploratory creativity discovers novel ideas within an existing conceptual space and, in the process, invites others to consider the limits and potential of the space. But one can go even further, beyond exploring and toward transforming the conceptual space:
A given style of thinking, no less than a road system, can render certain thoughts impossible — which is to say, unthinkable… The deepest cases of creativity involve someone's thinking 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 preexisting style in some way. It must be tweaked, or even radically transformed, so that thoughts are now possible which previously (within the untransformed space) were literally inconceivable.
This, of course, is the paradox of all transformation, best illustrated by the Vampire Problem thought experiment — because our imagination is the combinatorial product of past experience, we are fundamentally unable to imagine a truly altered future state and deem such states impossible, chronically mistaking the limits of our imagination (which transformative experience expands) for the limits of the possible.
Card from An Almanac of Birds: 100 Divinations for Uncertain Days.
Boden picks up where Koestler left off to explore what it takes for an idea to be truly transformative. "Bisociation" alone, she argues, is not enough to originate such ideas:
Combining ideas creatively is not like shaking marbles in a bag. The marbles have to come together because there is some intelligible, though previously unnoticed, link between them which we value because it is interesting — illuminating, thought-provoking, humorous — in some way… We don't only form links; we evaluate them.
This question of value is where the central paradox of creativity resides, because our values are largely inherited conceptual spaces, making it difficult to assess or even recognize the value of a transformative idea whose originality overflows and overwhelms the conceptual space. In consonance with Bob Dylan's observation that "people have a hard time accepting anything that overwhelms them," Boden writes:
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… 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.
She returns to the most crucial element of creativity — surprise so intense it has an edge of shock: Something previously unthinkable has entered your mind. To be surprised is to watch your calculus of probability crumble in the face of the possible, to find the locus of your expectations too small to encompass what you have just encountered. (This is why societies and epochs, such as ours, that prioritize certainty and self-righteousness over exploration and surprise are shackling their own creativity.) Boden writes:
A merely novel idea is one which can be described and/or produced by the same set of generative rules as are other, familiar, ideas. A radically original, or creative, idea is one which cannot.
[…]
To be fundamentally creative, it is not enough for an idea to be unusual — not even if it is valuable, too. Nor is it enough for it to be a mere novelty, something which has never happened before. Fundamentally creative ideas are surprising in a deeper way. Where this type of creativity is concerned, we have to do with expectations not about probabilities, but about possibilities. In such cases, our surprise at the creative idea recognizes that the world has turned out differently not just from the way we thought it would, but even from the way we thought it could.
We are animated by this creative urge to bridge the actual and the possible because it matters to us what world we live in — it matters because we are made of matter, because while a computer's generative flow is, as Boden puts it, "implemented rather than embodied," ours streams in through through the sensorium of our bodily aliveness. A quarter century after the publication of Boden's seminal book, months after the emergence of transformer-based large language models, Cambridge University endowed a lecture series in her honor. In her inaugural address, she reflected:
Homo sapiens is an intensely social species. Our needs for what Maslow called "love and belonging" (which includes collaboration and conversation) and "esteem" (which includes respect and dignity) are not mere trivialities, or optional extras. They matter. They must be satisfied if we are to thrive. Their degree of satisfaction will influence the individual's subjective experience of happiness (and others' measurements of it).Computers have no such needs.
It is out of this mattering, out of our creaturely neediness, that we originate anything of substance, value, and surprise. It is because things matter to us that we suffer, and it is because we suffer that we are impelled to transmute our suffering into art.
In the remainder of The Creative Mind, Boden goes on to explore the complementary role of chaos and constraint in creativity and how, despite their limitations, AI models can help us better understand the mystery of human intuition. Complement it with Oliver Sacks, writing three decades before ChatGPT, on consciousness, AI, and our search for meaning, then revisit his own take on the three essential elements of creativity.
Hello Blog! This is the weekly email digest of 
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar